Purpose Despite growing investment in entrepreneurship education, a persistent gap remains between post-graduation intention and actual venture creation. This study examines the institutional barriers preventing entrepreneurship graduates from starting businesses, comparing the contrasting contexts of Pakistan and the United Kingdom (UK). Design/methodology/approach Grounded in Scott's tripartite institutional framework, the study adopts a qualitative design using semi-structured, in-depth interviews with purposively and snowball-sampled entrepreneurship graduates from each country. Data were analysed using the Gioia methodology, generating first-order concepts, second-order themes, and aggregate dimensions through systematic iterative coding. Findings Three aggregate dimensions were identified. Regulative barriers included bureaucratic obstruction destroying the entrepreneurial window, restricted finance access, and temporally misaligned support mechanisms. Normative barriers encompassed employment expectation pressure, social shame of venture failure as a collective reputational mechanism specific to the Pakistani context, and collectivist family obligation reinforced by material dependency. Cultural-cognitive barriers comprised structural erosion of entrepreneurial self-belief at graduation, risk aversion paradoxically reinforced by analytical education, and internalised illegitimacy of self-employment. Practical implications Educators must invest in resilience-based pedagogy and post-graduation transition preparation. In collectivist contexts, culturally sensitive failure-reframing approaches are essential given the collective and reputational nature of venture failure shame. Pakistan policymakers should reform registration processes and develop graduate-specific financial products. UK policymakers should realign support mechanisms to the immediate post-graduation period. Originality/value This study is among the first to apply Scott's tripartite framework comparatively to the post-graduation intention-action gap, advancing it from a static typology to a dynamic account of cross-pillar interaction. Four original contributions emerge, including the collective shame mechanism of failure and the risk-deepening paradox of entrepreneurship education, with direct implications for educators, policymakers, and university support practitioners in both emerging and developed economies.
Muhammad Arsalan Nazir (Tue,) studied this question.